You touched on the whole point Pat. For me, this has never ever been about "abortion" rights and I hate seeing the dispute reduced to that. What it's about (or should be about) is whether the government has the right to legislate the use of our bodies. We are horrified when we hear of forced sterilizations of women (and we have a sorry history of that in the US - starting in the late 1920s against mentally ill women, also enacted by the federal government against Native American women as late as the 1970s). Why should we be any less horrified to hear of the forced use of a women's womb to incubate a child she doesn't want or choose to keep. No one has the right to enslave our bodies.

Look at it this way - say there is a rich person in your neighborhood who needs a kidney or cornea transplant; would you like the government to legislate that you must give them one of yours? What if laws were passed that said no medical treatment could be given for cancer if you developed it after a certain age? Or that every man over the age of 50 must have silcone injections to conceal his facial wrinkles? These are our bodies, and no one - and certainly no government - has the right to tell us how to care for them.

Allowing Roe v. Wade to ever be overturned is no less than allowing women to be bound into a form of slavery. It's ironic to me that the very people who claim to want less government - the conservative Republicans - are the very people who seek to impose government ownership of the most private and personal possession we have - ourselves.